I feel like this read on Manchin and Sinema is very hard to argue with:
The recent in-depth interview with Sinema in which she reveals (tellingly) that her office in Tucson is unoccupied sheds a lot of light on one of the most confounding aspects of the obstructionist legacy she and Manchin are building. Any read, even a favorable one, of this interview makes it perfectly clear that this person could not give a shit about anyone or anything but her own career. Being a Senator is meaningless except inasmuch as it might give her a the right springboard into whatever lobbying job she’s dying to get. This is a line on a resume. There’s no signature policy she wants to enact, no legacy she wants to leave behind – this is the Millennial politics of the near future. Sincerity doesn’t even need to be faked and the question “What’s in this for me?” does not refer to one’s odds of reelection.
This is the fundamental issue with Manchin, and apparently with Sinema as well: it is impossible to figure out what it is they want. If they wanted something then some kind of political deal would be possible. Recall some of their predecessors: Robert Byrd using his Senate seat as a cudgel for beating West Virginia pork out of his colleagues, or Carl Hayden openly boasting about trading his vote on Civil Rights legislation for Federally-funded Arizona water projects. With this current pair, it’s unclear that handing them a blank check would accomplish anything. What do they want? What’s their strategy? What are they hoping to gain from being the reluctant members of a bare-majority coalition?
The answer is nothing, and that is a big reason that they are so nearly impossible to deal with. They don’t want anything except to play this character that they believe will pay off for them, personally, down the road. When Manchin is Governor or a mouthpiece of the coal industry and Sinema has taken her exhausting narcissism to the Chamber of Commerce or whatever, they’ll look back on what they did as a success. The politics of Congress is predicated on the assumption that each individual member wants something that either benefits their constituents directly or increases the member’s odds of reelection. In Manchin’s case the latter is argued, although not entirely convincingly (would West Virginians really be furious if the minimum wage went up? Seems unlikely!) whereas Sinema doesn’t even seem to care about getting re-elected. If they don’t want anything, how can you negotiate with them?
I... dont really agree with much of any of that post. I think it's written from the perspective that Synema and Manchin's refusal to sign onto Democratic priorities inherently means they're ideologically corrupted when there is of course a huge number of people who dont sign onto those deals (See, every single member of the GOP).
Sure. They're all politicians at the end of the day, and there's some measure corruption there inherently, but the essay isnt persuasive to argue that they are inherently corrupt for holding the position they current hold.
Manchin has run for reelection a few times. if he wanted some cushy lobbying gig, you would think he could get it now. I bet you there are a LOT of very conservative coal tycoons that would love nothing more than to throw money at Manchin to get him to retire or step away so that his replacement (who would 100% be a Republican) could step in.
Synema is also fairly moderate (less so than Manchin, typically), and I think the same roughly applies to here. I'm happy to agree that her approach seems less likely that it will payoff in a general election in in AZ (maybe it minutely ups a General election win at the cost of a potential meaningful primary challenge, but then - if the Democratic party decides Synema is the most likely to win an AZ seat, they might push back on any primary challengers. She might be banking on that).
There's an unfortunate flaw in the argument in the whole: It presumes that progressive policy is inherently correct and that the benefits it brings are inherently what everyone wants. I tend to believe that raising minimum wage would be very good for a lot of people - but there are plenty of folks in West Virginia that dont believe it is the government's responsibility to raise it above where it currently is, and will vote against it even if it would benefit them. Those people are likely to support someone like Manchin's opinion.
As a side note: Voting against one's own self interest isnt uncommon. Being a middle class white man, every time I vote for a Democrat rather than a Republican, I'm signing onto the I'm likely to have less money in my pocket at the end of their term than I otherwise would have. I'm fine with that, provided they bring other political benefits that I think will help society.
Piggie backing off of what I posted the other day, Bernie Sanders came out and tweeted that "2 senators should not be able to stop 48 senators from doing their job!". The obvious and natural rejoinder was "It isnt 2 senators stopping 48 senators. It's 52 senators stopping 48 senators". That's exactly how it's supposed to work.
Now, dont get me wrong -the 50 senators that the Democrats currently field represent 56% of the US population, to the 44% represented by GOP senators. So the math is wonky from that perspective, but it doesnt change the fact that progressive politicians seem to be misunderstand that their position is neither a majority nor a plurality, and compromises must be made to get progressive legislation on the book.
Piggie backing off of what I posted the other day, Bernie Sanders came out and tweeted that "2 senators should not be able to stop 48 senators from doing their job!". The obvious and natural rejoinder was "It isnt 2 senators stopping 48 senators. It's 52 senators stopping 48 senators". That's exactly how it's supposed to work.
Now, dont get me wrong -the 50 senators that the Democrats currently field represent 56% of the US population, to the 44% represented by GOP senators. So the math is wonky from that perspective, but it doesnt change the fact that progressive politicians seem to be misunderstand that their position is neither a majority nor a plurality, and compromises must be made to get progressive legislation on the book.
Didn't this thing start out at close to $10 trillion and it's been whittled down to $3.5 trillion?? It seems to me that cutting it to a THIRD of what it started at is pretty goddamn large compromise. Manchin seems to want it to be a 1/10th of what it started at. But it would still have some great things in it and at least he has SOME demands or a number that can be met. Sinema can't even articulate what it is she wants. Of course, it's awful difficult to articulate demands or positions when you don't actually have any. Everything about her, from her ostentatious outfits, to her completely over the top "thumbs down" on the the minimum wage provision in the COVID-19 relief package, to this endless game of chicken on the infrastructure bill just screams "look at me, please!!!". I can at least draw on a line between Manchin's views, his state, and his position here (even if I think it's absurd). I seriously think Sinema is doing this because she likes the attention (even more than money she is getting from groups who oppose provisions in the bill).
@BallpointMan Have you missed all the compromises the Democratic party has been fielding since Obama? It seems like they do nothing but compromise while the Right sits there and tells them that they need to compromise. Compromise won't work, Conservative politicians don't want compromise.
I think it's very bizarre to comment upon the style of dressing of anyone. It really isnt my business and I dont think it's appropriate if it's the bartender at the local watering hole or the US Senator from Arizona. I genuinely believe that every member of Congress feels that they are powerful people, and I'm sure for almost all of them (including Bernie Sanders, for example) - they enjoy feeling powerful and "being seen" in that way. I think that comes with the territory, and I'm not about to judge someone for that, especially not based on anecdotal nuances like an outfit or a gesture they made that one time that was clearly a reference to John McCain...
I also have never seen 10 trillion on the deal. I think I saw 4 initial. It's at 3.5 right now and that is a pipe dream, and always was one. I can imagine something like 1.5 to 1.8...
@BallpointMan Have you missed all the compromises the Democratic party has been fielding since Obama? It seems like they do nothing but compromise while the Right sits there and tells them that they need to compromise. Compromise won't work, Conservative politicians don't want compromise.
Conservatives have to compromise all the time too to try to get legislation passed. You may not see it compromising, but it still is. For example - The so called "skinny-repeal" they tried to push through to end parts of the ACA were originally designed to repeal the whole healthcare program. They compromised (and then failed, much like Democrats currently are).
Right now - any legislation that anyone wants to pass through a system other than the reconciliation process requires meaningful compromise to have a chance (since neither party has had 60 sitting senators since 2008).
This is all theater anyway. If the Dems don't get their $4 trillion, it's because they didn't really intend to get it to begin with.
The progressives are starting to lose the perception war, and just wait when the bill comes due for the climate change initiatives. I'm going to predict a Republican landslide when people start seeing their gas/electric bills and how much it costs to fill their gas tanks in a year or two. This country has had it too good for too long for the majority of the people to tolerate any kind of sacrifice. It's sad, but unfortunately I think it's very true...
This is all theater anyway. If the Dems don't get their $4 trillion, it's because they didn't really intend to get it to begin with.
The progressives are starting to lose the perception war, and just wait when the bill comes due for the climate change initiatives. I'm going to predict a Republican landslide when people start seeing their gas/electric bills and how much it costs to fill their gas tanks in a year or two. This country has had it too good for too long for the majority of the people to tolerate any kind of sacrifice. It's sad, but unfortunately I think it's very true...
Just wait til the bill comes due for climate change itself........
That said, I've already accepted we'll never do anything about it til it's too late. 30% of people can't even wrap their head around the danger of a virus whose tangible effects are all around them. The idea they are going to be convinced of the danger of something that they can't see unless it manifests within 4 blocks of where their house is located is pretty much zero.
Piggie backing off of what I posted the other day, Bernie Sanders came out and tweeted that "2 senators should not be able to stop 48 senators from doing their job!". The obvious and natural rejoinder was "It isnt 2 senators stopping 48 senators. It's 52 senators stopping 48 senators". That's exactly how it's supposed to work.
Now, dont get me wrong -the 50 senators that the Democrats currently field represent 56% of the US population, to the 44% represented by GOP senators. So the math is wonky from that perspective, but it doesnt change the fact that progressive politicians seem to be misunderstand that their position is neither a majority nor a plurality, and compromises must be made to get progressive legislation on the book.
I get what you're saying here but I just dont understand what the "compromise" in the case of Sinema is. Look, Manchin represents some deeply conservative voters. So for me, the analysis seems simple, they can trim some amount from the overall bill and it seems like he'll go for it. Being able to tell his voters that he got Washington to cut wasteful spending.
But Sinema is a former Green Party person, someone who still says she believes in some progressive things but also is a fiscal conservative? I mean, I guess I just don't understand how or what the compromise is here. And what's the compromise she's giving up? Your point is good in theory. It's good in a general sense. But I think applying it here doesn't make a ton of sense. You can't really say that Sinema is representing a more conservative group of voters than several other Democrats who have made zero objections and have also not made themselves the center of this debate. The pair from Georgia. The other Arizona Senator. The dude from freaking Montana.
I think it's totally legit for Sanders to call out what seems to be a self-centered act. Or maybe lobbyist or donor centered might be more accurate. Again, I think your theory holds with Manchin. He represents some staunchly conservative voters. Even with the screwy Senate representation there's a least of fig leaf of democratic norms behind that. But with Sinema? Are the people of Arizona skeptical of this Biden-backed initiative? I haven't seen much evidence of that.
This is all theater anyway. If the Dems don't get their $4 trillion, it's because they didn't really intend to get it to begin with.
The progressives are starting to lose the perception war, and just wait when the bill comes due for the climate change initiatives. I'm going to predict a Republican landslide when people start seeing their gas/electric bills and how much it costs to fill their gas tanks in a year or two. This country has had it too good for too long for the majority of the people to tolerate any kind of sacrifice. It's sad, but unfortunately I think it's very true...
Just wait til the bill comes due for climate change itself........
Considerable bills are already being racked up, even if most people don't directly recognize that. For instance a portion of costs for things like hurricane damage, wildfires, air conditioning, deaths and hospitalization from heat exhaustion. Relocation due to sea level rise may have had a relatively small impact in the US to date, but it's already a major issue in some parts of the world.
Not sure what the Democrats or the Republicans have to do with gas prices. Pretty sure that's a private industry.
That doesn't necessarily mean there are no levies on prices. In the UK the government has a program of social and environmental initiatives (like energy efficiency measures and support for vulnerable customers) that's historically been mainly funded through a levy on energy prices. Something like 20% of electricity bills comes from this. For gas bills it's much lower - more like 3% - reflecting that to date there has been little effort put into finding alternatives to gas. However, that situation is rapidly changing and there will be significant costs in the future for things like converting the gas grid to run on hydrogen and supporting homes to switch to heat source pumps. Whether those costs will be passed through prices or not will be a political decision and just now (with wholesale gas prices having gone up over 400% in the last 18 months) it would take an extremely brave (or stupid) politician to put any further pressure on future energy prices.
This is all theater anyway. If the Dems don't get their $4 trillion, it's because they didn't really intend to get it to begin with.
The progressives are starting to lose the perception war, and just wait when the bill comes due for the climate change initiatives. I'm going to predict a Republican landslide when people start seeing their gas/electric bills and how much it costs to fill their gas tanks in a year or two. This country has had it too good for too long for the majority of the people to tolerate any kind of sacrifice. It's sad, but unfortunately I think it's very true...
Alternative sources of power are remarkably cheaper than fossil fuels, barring initial start-up. So there's gonna be huge costs due to the consequences of climate change, as well as rising costs for fossil fuels. Not sure why you think stopping mass extinction events is somehow more expensive than letting them happen.
Besides, the idea that individual citizens need to pay for it are a myth. Large corporations account for over 90% of this crap. They can foot the bill.
But Sinema is a former Green Party person, someone who still says she believes in some progressive things but also is a fiscal conservative? I mean, I guess I just don't understand how or what the compromise is here. And what's the compromise she's giving up? Your point is good in theory. It's good in a general sense. But I think applying it here doesn't make a ton of sense. You can't really say that Sinema is representing a more conservative group of voters than several other Democrats who have made zero objections and have also not made themselves the center of this debate. The pair from Georgia. The other Arizona Senator. The dude from freaking Montana.
I think it just represents a particular political ethos. She's a moderate, who won a highly contested election in a fairly conservative state by being moderate. Her moderate campaign was probably essential in securing that win. I think she also echoed a lot of the "Maverick-ism" that made McCain very popular in AZ, and what is she being now if not somewhat of a "maverick".
A US senator sometimes tries to reflect the views of their constituency, and sometimes believe their constituency selected them for the senator's own views to go forward as they feel best works for them: This is why the Georgia Senators might choose to support the bill while an AZ senator might oppose it.
Susan Collins is probably the most moderate member of the GOP (Maybe Murkowski) - and she recently came out against it, despite Maine being a fair liberal area that voted for Biden by a reasonable degree. Is she just grandstanding too?
This is all theater anyway. If the Dems don't get their $4 trillion, it's because they didn't really intend to get it to begin with.
The progressives are starting to lose the perception war, and just wait when the bill comes due for the climate change initiatives. I'm going to predict a Republican landslide when people start seeing their gas/electric bills and how much it costs to fill their gas tanks in a year or two. This country has had it too good for too long for the majority of the people to tolerate any kind of sacrifice. It's sad, but unfortunately I think it's very true...
Besides, the idea that individual citizens need to pay for it are a myth. Large corporations account for over 90% of this crap. They can foot the bill.
They can foot the bill, but they can also raise their prices, AND tell the consumers why those prices are being raised. Democracy is all about getting the most votes in the NEXT election. It takes an intelligent electorate to look at the long term. We are definitely not there yet..
But Sinema is a former Green Party person, someone who still says she believes in some progressive things but also is a fiscal conservative? I mean, I guess I just don't understand how or what the compromise is here. And what's the compromise she's giving up? Your point is good in theory. It's good in a general sense. But I think applying it here doesn't make a ton of sense. You can't really say that Sinema is representing a more conservative group of voters than several other Democrats who have made zero objections and have also not made themselves the center of this debate. The pair from Georgia. The other Arizona Senator. The dude from freaking Montana.
I think it just represents a particular political ethos. She's a moderate, who won a highly contested election in a fairly conservative state by being moderate. Her moderate campaign was probably essential in securing that win. I think she also echoed a lot of the "Maverick-ism" that made McCain very popular in AZ, and what is she being now if not somewhat of a "maverick".
A US senator sometimes tries to reflect the views of their constituency, and sometimes believe their constituency selected them for the senator's own views to go forward as they feel best works for them: This is why the Georgia Senators might choose to support the bill while an AZ senator might oppose it.
Susan Collins is probably the most moderate member of the GOP (Maybe Murkowski) - and she recently came out against it, despite Maine being a fair liberal area that voted for Biden by a reasonable degree. Is she just grandstanding too?
Again, she's not necessarily a moderate. I think people are right to question her seeming change of views here. As I said, she ran as a Green Party candidate, it really doesn't get more leftist than that. She championed progressive economic policy in past campaigns as a Democrat. The public -- and other members of the party -- are right to think there's something duplicitous here.
This is all theater anyway. If the Dems don't get their $4 trillion, it's because they didn't really intend to get it to begin with.
The progressives are starting to lose the perception war, and just wait when the bill comes due for the climate change initiatives. I'm going to predict a Republican landslide when people start seeing their gas/electric bills and how much it costs to fill their gas tanks in a year or two. This country has had it too good for too long for the majority of the people to tolerate any kind of sacrifice. It's sad, but unfortunately I think it's very true...
Besides, the idea that individual citizens need to pay for it are a myth. Large corporations account for over 90% of this crap. They can foot the bill.
They can foot the bill, but they can also raise their prices, AND tell the consumers why those prices are being raised. Democracy is all about getting the most votes in the NEXT election. It takes an intelligent electorate to look at the long term. We are definitely not there yet..
That's why regulation is a thing. Remember, before regulation, businesses paid people in "scrip" instead of real money.
But Sinema is a former Green Party person, someone who still says she believes in some progressive things but also is a fiscal conservative? I mean, I guess I just don't understand how or what the compromise is here. And what's the compromise she's giving up? Your point is good in theory. It's good in a general sense. But I think applying it here doesn't make a ton of sense. You can't really say that Sinema is representing a more conservative group of voters than several other Democrats who have made zero objections and have also not made themselves the center of this debate. The pair from Georgia. The other Arizona Senator. The dude from freaking Montana.
I think it just represents a particular political ethos. She's a moderate, who won a highly contested election in a fairly conservative state by being moderate. Her moderate campaign was probably essential in securing that win. I think she also echoed a lot of the "Maverick-ism" that made McCain very popular in AZ, and what is she being now if not somewhat of a "maverick".
A US senator sometimes tries to reflect the views of their constituency, and sometimes believe their constituency selected them for the senator's own views to go forward as they feel best works for them: This is why the Georgia Senators might choose to support the bill while an AZ senator might oppose it.
Susan Collins is probably the most moderate member of the GOP (Maybe Murkowski) - and she recently came out against it, despite Maine being a fair liberal area that voted for Biden by a reasonable degree. Is she just grandstanding too?
Again, she's not necessarily a moderate. I think people are right to question her seeming change of views here. As I said, she ran as a Green Party candidate, it really doesn't get more leftist than that. She championed progressive economic policy in past campaigns as a Democrat. The public -- and other members of the party -- are right to think there's something duplicitous here.
Normally, I would say that assuming a particular donation by a group of or corporation to a candidate doesn't necessarily mean anything on it's own. It's entirely possible to take money from corporate interests and vote against then when the rubber hits the road. But Sinema's votes this term really do seem connected to who is funding her campaign and PAC, notably the pharmaceutical industry.
There is definitely something to the "I'm from Arizona, I'm gonna be like John McCain" thing. But I'd say there is a world of difference between a vote made solely to spite Donald Trump personally that just so happened to NOT kick millions of people off their health insurance with no back up plan, and possibly torpedoing a bill that provides things like replacing lead water pipes, expanding rural broadband capability, and providing more dental coverage through Medicare (just to name a few) out of either some theatric notion of "moderation" just plain being bought off. The moral implications and components of these two bills and votes are not equal, nor are the reasons for opposing them.
Case in the point: while she headed back to Arizona in the middle of negotiations, she just released a two-page statement expressing disappointment that the House isn't going to vote yet. I read the entire thing twice, and I still can't even discern the first thing about what she actually wants.
It's worth pointing out that it's not just people here and on Twitter who can't figure out what Sinema wants. The White House can't get an answer out of her either, which is why they've given the Progessive Caucus their tacit approval to hold the line. The reason there was no vote last night is because Nancy Pelosi does not call for votes she isn't 100% sure will be successful. Biden and Manchin have a decades long relationship, and he'll give them a number they can finesse and work around. Sinema has just plain gone rogue.
I've seen her trajectory in former left-wing media personalities, and I'm not entirely convinced she isn't on a path to switching parties, not because her "demands" aren't being met, but because it's a savvy career move. If there was something she wanted to prevent this, I'd give it to her, but, again, at BEST, her problems with the bill and what she'd prefer are abstract and cryptic, and that is being generous. If there is something she wants or prefers, it would be helpful if she would say what the fuck it is so people know what field they're playing on. Until she does so, I can only assume she values the theater of this more than the bill passing OR not passing.
I know what Manchin wants. He's someone who is at least pretending to care about the deficit, wants to gut many of the climate provisions, and wants to means test some of the programs. At least that's a POSITION. All I know about Sinema is she magically reversed her view on the prescription drug provision from where it was 3 years ago after get $750,000 from the pharmaceutical companies. If she wants to present another narrative, everyone is waiting to hear it.
But Sinema is a former Green Party person, someone who still says she believes in some progressive things but also is a fiscal conservative? I mean, I guess I just don't understand how or what the compromise is here. And what's the compromise she's giving up? Your point is good in theory. It's good in a general sense. But I think applying it here doesn't make a ton of sense. You can't really say that Sinema is representing a more conservative group of voters than several other Democrats who have made zero objections and have also not made themselves the center of this debate. The pair from Georgia. The other Arizona Senator. The dude from freaking Montana.
I think it just represents a particular political ethos. She's a moderate, who won a highly contested election in a fairly conservative state by being moderate. Her moderate campaign was probably essential in securing that win. I think she also echoed a lot of the "Maverick-ism" that made McCain very popular in AZ, and what is she being now if not somewhat of a "maverick".
A US senator sometimes tries to reflect the views of their constituency, and sometimes believe their constituency selected them for the senator's own views to go forward as they feel best works for them: This is why the Georgia Senators might choose to support the bill while an AZ senator might oppose it.
Susan Collins is probably the most moderate member of the GOP (Maybe Murkowski) - and she recently came out against it, despite Maine being a fair liberal area that voted for Biden by a reasonable degree. Is she just grandstanding too?
Again, she's not necessarily a moderate. I think people are right to question her seeming change of views here. As I said, she ran as a Green Party candidate, it really doesn't get more leftist than that. She championed progressive economic policy in past campaigns as a Democrat. The public -- and other members of the party -- are right to think there's something duplicitous here.
This is an honest ask: Can you provide some sourcing that she ran as a progressive in her senate seat that she eventually won? I know she *was* a green party anti war politician way back in the early 2000s - but from what I can tell, she's been regarded as a blue dog or moderate Democrats since the second she set foot into the senate. Unless I am mistaken, she wasnt a progressive for several years in the senate and only now that Biden is in the white house has suddenly become a moderate. I think she's been this way for her entire senatorial career. (But please - if you have evidence to support a different view, I'd like to read it).
I personally think that the left (and public) want someone to blame for the gridlock, and they're pointing at the two most moderate members of the Democrat's coalition. The progressive left needs a boogieman, so Manchin and Sinema arent just moderates, but are now "evil, greedy and corrupt!". It's very convenient. It reminds me how when Warren backed off of MFA in the 2020 primaries, she suddenly went from champion of progressives to *Snake emoji*
I say this as a progressive, but my god would progressives be so much more effective as a political force in this country if they didnt believe that deep down, 50 + 1 % of the country were actually progressives that supported everything they do. If Bernie Sanders knew how to work with other people, he'd probably be the most powerful political figure since Reagan. In reality, that could probably be said about Conservatives, who have long tricked themselves into believing the "silent majority" backs them.
But Sinema is a former Green Party person, someone who still says she believes in some progressive things but also is a fiscal conservative? I mean, I guess I just don't understand how or what the compromise is here. And what's the compromise she's giving up? Your point is good in theory. It's good in a general sense. But I think applying it here doesn't make a ton of sense. You can't really say that Sinema is representing a more conservative group of voters than several other Democrats who have made zero objections and have also not made themselves the center of this debate. The pair from Georgia. The other Arizona Senator. The dude from freaking Montana.
I think it just represents a particular political ethos. She's a moderate, who won a highly contested election in a fairly conservative state by being moderate. Her moderate campaign was probably essential in securing that win. I think she also echoed a lot of the "Maverick-ism" that made McCain very popular in AZ, and what is she being now if not somewhat of a "maverick".
A US senator sometimes tries to reflect the views of their constituency, and sometimes believe their constituency selected them for the senator's own views to go forward as they feel best works for them: This is why the Georgia Senators might choose to support the bill while an AZ senator might oppose it.
Susan Collins is probably the most moderate member of the GOP (Maybe Murkowski) - and she recently came out against it, despite Maine being a fair liberal area that voted for Biden by a reasonable degree. Is she just grandstanding too?
Again, she's not necessarily a moderate. I think people are right to question her seeming change of views here. As I said, she ran as a Green Party candidate, it really doesn't get more leftist than that. She championed progressive economic policy in past campaigns as a Democrat. The public -- and other members of the party -- are right to think there's something duplicitous here.
This is an honest ask: Can you provide some sourcing that she ran as a progressive in her senate seat that she eventually won? I know she *was* a green party anti war politician way back in the early 2000s - but from what I can tell, she's been regarded as a blue dog or moderate Democrats since the second she set foot into the senate. Unless I am mistaken, she wasnt a progressive for several years in the senate and only now that Biden is in the white house has suddenly become a moderate. I think she's been this way for her entire senatorial career. (But please - if you have evidence to support a different view, I'd like to read it).
I personally think that the left (and public) want someone to blame for the gridlock, and they're pointing at the two most moderate members of the Democrat's coalition. The progressive left needs a boogieman, so Manchin and Sinema arent just moderates, but are now "evil, greedy and corrupt!". It's very convenient. It reminds me how when Warren backed off of MFA in the 2020 primaries, she suddenly went from champion of progressives to *Snake emoji*
I say this as a progressive, but my god would progressives be so much more effective as a political force in this country if they didnt believe that deep down, 50 + 1 % of the country were actually progressives that supported everything they do. If Bernie Sanders knew how to work with other people, he'd probably be the most powerful political figure since Reagan. In reality, that could probably be said about Conservatives, who have long tricked themselves into believing the "silent majority" backs them.
But this is not like Obamacare. There is no groundswell of public opposition to this bill. What's animating the far right at the moment is opposition to vaccine mandates. Polling suggests this bill is, in generalities, widely popular. The kicker is it gets even MORE popular when it's explained that part of it is paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.
I simply don't believe their positions stem from listening to the carefully considered objections of the citizens of WV and AZ. The only people who even know this is going on are political junkies. Their positions are coming from lobbyists. Manchin and Sinema are only "corrupt" in the sense that the entire system is corrupt, and basically allows for legalized bribery since Citizens United.
This does have a comparison to Obamacare, in that two Senators managed to whittle it down to the point that, while certainly vastly preferable to the status quo, was a shadow of what it could have been. These chances come along once a decade at most. When Republicans get them, usually on tax cuts and the court, they swing for the home run. Democrats seem content with bloop singles to the opposite field. Of course this is MOSTLY a result of the Senate shifting the Overton Window so far to the right.
Manchin did something I absolutely despise a couple days ago, using this framing of "entitlements". Most of what are referred to as entitlements are, in actuality, better described as "earned benefits". But the right has so successfully manipulated the language on this subject over the decades that stuff we literally pay for every two weeks out of our paycheck is described with a word that has become a synonym for "welfare". Drives me up a wall.
But Sinema is a former Green Party person, someone who still says she believes in some progressive things but also is a fiscal conservative? I mean, I guess I just don't understand how or what the compromise is here. And what's the compromise she's giving up? Your point is good in theory. It's good in a general sense. But I think applying it here doesn't make a ton of sense. You can't really say that Sinema is representing a more conservative group of voters than several other Democrats who have made zero objections and have also not made themselves the center of this debate. The pair from Georgia. The other Arizona Senator. The dude from freaking Montana.
I think it just represents a particular political ethos. She's a moderate, who won a highly contested election in a fairly conservative state by being moderate. Her moderate campaign was probably essential in securing that win. I think she also echoed a lot of the "Maverick-ism" that made McCain very popular in AZ, and what is she being now if not somewhat of a "maverick".
A US senator sometimes tries to reflect the views of their constituency, and sometimes believe their constituency selected them for the senator's own views to go forward as they feel best works for them: This is why the Georgia Senators might choose to support the bill while an AZ senator might oppose it.
Susan Collins is probably the most moderate member of the GOP (Maybe Murkowski) - and she recently came out against it, despite Maine being a fair liberal area that voted for Biden by a reasonable degree. Is she just grandstanding too?
Again, she's not necessarily a moderate. I think people are right to question her seeming change of views here. As I said, she ran as a Green Party candidate, it really doesn't get more leftist than that. She championed progressive economic policy in past campaigns as a Democrat. The public -- and other members of the party -- are right to think there's something duplicitous here.
This is an honest ask: Can you provide some sourcing that she ran as a progressive in her senate seat that she eventually won?
I'll get around to your ask as it's a little bit of work to dig up 2018 campaign stuff, I am going off some trusted journalists' remarks with that. But I did want to real quick drop this here:
Maybe this was a communication error. So I'm willing to change my mind if it gets clarified. But right now, it really doesn't look like she's being honest. And shouldn't we want to hold lobbyist-allied politicians to account? If she is as bad as this looks, it's not like it would be some novel, extraordinary thing for a Senator.
But Sinema is a former Green Party person, someone who still says she believes in some progressive things but also is a fiscal conservative? I mean, I guess I just don't understand how or what the compromise is here. And what's the compromise she's giving up? Your point is good in theory. It's good in a general sense. But I think applying it here doesn't make a ton of sense. You can't really say that Sinema is representing a more conservative group of voters than several other Democrats who have made zero objections and have also not made themselves the center of this debate. The pair from Georgia. The other Arizona Senator. The dude from freaking Montana.
I think it just represents a particular political ethos. She's a moderate, who won a highly contested election in a fairly conservative state by being moderate. Her moderate campaign was probably essential in securing that win. I think she also echoed a lot of the "Maverick-ism" that made McCain very popular in AZ, and what is she being now if not somewhat of a "maverick".
A US senator sometimes tries to reflect the views of their constituency, and sometimes believe their constituency selected them for the senator's own views to go forward as they feel best works for them: This is why the Georgia Senators might choose to support the bill while an AZ senator might oppose it.
Susan Collins is probably the most moderate member of the GOP (Maybe Murkowski) - and she recently came out against it, despite Maine being a fair liberal area that voted for Biden by a reasonable degree. Is she just grandstanding too?
Again, she's not necessarily a moderate. I think people are right to question her seeming change of views here. As I said, she ran as a Green Party candidate, it really doesn't get more leftist than that. She championed progressive economic policy in past campaigns as a Democrat. The public -- and other members of the party -- are right to think there's something duplicitous here.
This is an honest ask: Can you provide some sourcing that she ran as a progressive in her senate seat that she eventually won?
I'll get around to your ask as it's a little bit of work to dig up 2018 campaign stuff, I am going off some trusted journalists' remarks with that. But I did want to real quick drop this here:
Maybe this was a communication error. So I'm willing to change my mind if it gets clarified. But right now, it really doesn't look like she's being honest. And shouldn't we want to hold lobbyist-allied politicians to account? If she is as bad as this looks, it's not like it would be some novel, extraordinary thing for a Senator.
Everyone from Charlotte Alter in Time, to Maureen Dowd in the NYT, to Axios is running profiles of her, and they all seem to come to the same conclusion (aside from reading more like articles about a movie star). That she wants to be seen as a "maverick", and that this professional contrarianism is the means to that end. Wanting to be the female John McCain is not an ideology or governing philosophy. It's a branding exercise. And absent any core beliefs other than your own brand, money from donors fills that void.'
Maybe what sets this off for me is being one of the very small minority of people who never bought into McCain's "maverick" persona in the first place. And this is mostly because I read extensively about the 2000 Republican primary, in which the Bush campaign blanketed South Carolina with robo-calls insinuating his adopted daughter from Bangladesh was actually an out of wedlock black child. So much of what McCain bucking his own party occasionally was based on was nothing more than personal animus and spite towards W. and Trump for what they said about him, either indirectly or, in Trump's case, from his own mouth. And this somehow turned him into such a bipartisan hero that a sizable portion of Democrats in 2004 wanted Kerry to put him on the ticket (not like he ever would have joined). But it was mostly bullshit except for some high profile moments like the Healthcare vote. Other than that, he was a rock-solid Republican who had a narrative painted about him by the media every time he went on television.
@Balrog99 Well, one of those things outright prevents much needed infrastructure improvements, and the "tax cut" wasn't a tax cut. Those taxes still needed to be paid and weren't reduced in any way.
Also, people need to stop equating the two parties. One tried to throw out the election because they lost, stormed the capitol to outright murder lawmakers on the other side, and tossed children in cages with little food, shelter, or medical care. The other one isn't agressive enough when trying to stop these things. There's a world of difference between the 2 right now. And I will not stop harping on this until things change again, or I'm dead.
To clarify, by "parties" I am referring to those in charge. These would Democratic Senators and representatives as well as the Trump Administration at the time of these events. Since it was brought to my attention that some people had trouble with this.
MacKenzie Scott has spent the last 2 years trying to give away her wealth. She is failing:
Gave away 8 billion dollars in 2 years, which is staggering, and her net worth has almost doubled since then. Our entire economy is built specifically to funnel all the money upwards to the already wealthy. That's capitalism at work.
This also illustrates that we can tax the everloving heck out of the super rich, and they won't even feel it.
My guess is that most of the transactions are legal, but just illustrate the ways in which the rich avoid taxes and attention. This story from the Pandora papers explains how Tony Blair, who was strong on the idea of getting rid of tax loopholes, was able to save £312,000 on stamp duty when acquiring property ...
My guess is that most of the transactions are legal, but just illustrate the ways in which the rich avoid taxes and attention. This story from the Pandora papers explains how Tony Blair, who was strong on the idea of getting rid of tax loopholes, was able to save £312,000 on stamp duty when acquiring property ...
'Legal' and 'up and up' aren't necessarily the same thing. If I sell my crypto and make a few bucks on it, you can bet your ass the IRS will be all over me to 'pay my fair share' but meanwhile, when the truly wealthy protect their riches they get cricket noises...
Edit: Hell, I even have to declare the paltry 0.05% interest I make on my savings account (usually < $10) and the roughly $5 in dividends on the 1 share of my company stock I got as a gift from them when they listed on the NYSE!
Comments
The recent in-depth interview with Sinema in which she reveals (tellingly) that her office in Tucson is unoccupied sheds a lot of light on one of the most confounding aspects of the obstructionist legacy she and Manchin are building. Any read, even a favorable one, of this interview makes it perfectly clear that this person could not give a shit about anyone or anything but her own career. Being a Senator is meaningless except inasmuch as it might give her a the right springboard into whatever lobbying job she’s dying to get. This is a line on a resume. There’s no signature policy she wants to enact, no legacy she wants to leave behind – this is the Millennial politics of the near future. Sincerity doesn’t even need to be faked and the question “What’s in this for me?” does not refer to one’s odds of reelection.
This is the fundamental issue with Manchin, and apparently with Sinema as well: it is impossible to figure out what it is they want. If they wanted something then some kind of political deal would be possible. Recall some of their predecessors: Robert Byrd using his Senate seat as a cudgel for beating West Virginia pork out of his colleagues, or Carl Hayden openly boasting about trading his vote on Civil Rights legislation for Federally-funded Arizona water projects. With this current pair, it’s unclear that handing them a blank check would accomplish anything. What do they want? What’s their strategy? What are they hoping to gain from being the reluctant members of a bare-majority coalition?
The answer is nothing, and that is a big reason that they are so nearly impossible to deal with. They don’t want anything except to play this character that they believe will pay off for them, personally, down the road. When Manchin is Governor or a mouthpiece of the coal industry and Sinema has taken her exhausting narcissism to the Chamber of Commerce or whatever, they’ll look back on what they did as a success. The politics of Congress is predicated on the assumption that each individual member wants something that either benefits their constituents directly or increases the member’s odds of reelection. In Manchin’s case the latter is argued, although not entirely convincingly (would West Virginians really be furious if the minimum wage went up? Seems unlikely!) whereas Sinema doesn’t even seem to care about getting re-elected. If they don’t want anything, how can you negotiate with them?
Sure. They're all politicians at the end of the day, and there's some measure corruption there inherently, but the essay isnt persuasive to argue that they are inherently corrupt for holding the position they current hold.
Manchin has run for reelection a few times. if he wanted some cushy lobbying gig, you would think he could get it now. I bet you there are a LOT of very conservative coal tycoons that would love nothing more than to throw money at Manchin to get him to retire or step away so that his replacement (who would 100% be a Republican) could step in.
Synema is also fairly moderate (less so than Manchin, typically), and I think the same roughly applies to here. I'm happy to agree that her approach seems less likely that it will payoff in a general election in in AZ (maybe it minutely ups a General election win at the cost of a potential meaningful primary challenge, but then - if the Democratic party decides Synema is the most likely to win an AZ seat, they might push back on any primary challengers. She might be banking on that).
There's an unfortunate flaw in the argument in the whole: It presumes that progressive policy is inherently correct and that the benefits it brings are inherently what everyone wants. I tend to believe that raising minimum wage would be very good for a lot of people - but there are plenty of folks in West Virginia that dont believe it is the government's responsibility to raise it above where it currently is, and will vote against it even if it would benefit them. Those people are likely to support someone like Manchin's opinion.
As a side note: Voting against one's own self interest isnt uncommon. Being a middle class white man, every time I vote for a Democrat rather than a Republican, I'm signing onto the I'm likely to have less money in my pocket at the end of their term than I otherwise would have. I'm fine with that, provided they bring other political benefits that I think will help society.
https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/havana-syndrome-skepticism-it-was-probably-psychogenic-by-robert-bartholomew/
Now, dont get me wrong -the 50 senators that the Democrats currently field represent 56% of the US population, to the 44% represented by GOP senators. So the math is wonky from that perspective, but it doesnt change the fact that progressive politicians seem to be misunderstand that their position is neither a majority nor a plurality, and compromises must be made to get progressive legislation on the book.
Didn't this thing start out at close to $10 trillion and it's been whittled down to $3.5 trillion?? It seems to me that cutting it to a THIRD of what it started at is pretty goddamn large compromise. Manchin seems to want it to be a 1/10th of what it started at. But it would still have some great things in it and at least he has SOME demands or a number that can be met. Sinema can't even articulate what it is she wants. Of course, it's awful difficult to articulate demands or positions when you don't actually have any. Everything about her, from her ostentatious outfits, to her completely over the top "thumbs down" on the the minimum wage provision in the COVID-19 relief package, to this endless game of chicken on the infrastructure bill just screams "look at me, please!!!". I can at least draw on a line between Manchin's views, his state, and his position here (even if I think it's absurd). I seriously think Sinema is doing this because she likes the attention (even more than money she is getting from groups who oppose provisions in the bill).
I think it's very bizarre to comment upon the style of dressing of anyone. It really isnt my business and I dont think it's appropriate if it's the bartender at the local watering hole or the US Senator from Arizona. I genuinely believe that every member of Congress feels that they are powerful people, and I'm sure for almost all of them (including Bernie Sanders, for example) - they enjoy feeling powerful and "being seen" in that way. I think that comes with the territory, and I'm not about to judge someone for that, especially not based on anecdotal nuances like an outfit or a gesture they made that one time that was clearly a reference to John McCain...
I also have never seen 10 trillion on the deal. I think I saw 4 initial. It's at 3.5 right now and that is a pipe dream, and always was one. I can imagine something like 1.5 to 1.8...
Conservatives have to compromise all the time too to try to get legislation passed. You may not see it compromising, but it still is. For example - The so called "skinny-repeal" they tried to push through to end parts of the ACA were originally designed to repeal the whole healthcare program. They compromised (and then failed, much like Democrats currently are).
Right now - any legislation that anyone wants to pass through a system other than the reconciliation process requires meaningful compromise to have a chance (since neither party has had 60 sitting senators since 2008).
The progressives are starting to lose the perception war, and just wait when the bill comes due for the climate change initiatives. I'm going to predict a Republican landslide when people start seeing their gas/electric bills and how much it costs to fill their gas tanks in a year or two. This country has had it too good for too long for the majority of the people to tolerate any kind of sacrifice. It's sad, but unfortunately I think it's very true...
Just wait til the bill comes due for climate change itself........
That said, I've already accepted we'll never do anything about it til it's too late. 30% of people can't even wrap their head around the danger of a virus whose tangible effects are all around them. The idea they are going to be convinced of the danger of something that they can't see unless it manifests within 4 blocks of where their house is located is pretty much zero.
I get what you're saying here but I just dont understand what the "compromise" in the case of Sinema is. Look, Manchin represents some deeply conservative voters. So for me, the analysis seems simple, they can trim some amount from the overall bill and it seems like he'll go for it. Being able to tell his voters that he got Washington to cut wasteful spending.
But Sinema is a former Green Party person, someone who still says she believes in some progressive things but also is a fiscal conservative? I mean, I guess I just don't understand how or what the compromise is here. And what's the compromise she's giving up? Your point is good in theory. It's good in a general sense. But I think applying it here doesn't make a ton of sense. You can't really say that Sinema is representing a more conservative group of voters than several other Democrats who have made zero objections and have also not made themselves the center of this debate. The pair from Georgia. The other Arizona Senator. The dude from freaking Montana.
I think it's totally legit for Sanders to call out what seems to be a self-centered act. Or maybe lobbyist or donor centered might be more accurate. Again, I think your theory holds with Manchin. He represents some staunchly conservative voters. Even with the screwy Senate representation there's a least of fig leaf of democratic norms behind that. But with Sinema? Are the people of Arizona skeptical of this Biden-backed initiative? I haven't seen much evidence of that.
Considerable bills are already being racked up, even if most people don't directly recognize that. For instance a portion of costs for things like hurricane damage, wildfires, air conditioning, deaths and hospitalization from heat exhaustion. Relocation due to sea level rise may have had a relatively small impact in the US to date, but it's already a major issue in some parts of the world.
That doesn't necessarily mean there are no levies on prices. In the UK the government has a program of social and environmental initiatives (like energy efficiency measures and support for vulnerable customers) that's historically been mainly funded through a levy on energy prices. Something like 20% of electricity bills comes from this. For gas bills it's much lower - more like 3% - reflecting that to date there has been little effort put into finding alternatives to gas. However, that situation is rapidly changing and there will be significant costs in the future for things like converting the gas grid to run on hydrogen and supporting homes to switch to heat source pumps. Whether those costs will be passed through prices or not will be a political decision and just now (with wholesale gas prices having gone up over 400% in the last 18 months) it would take an extremely brave (or stupid) politician to put any further pressure on future energy prices.
Alternative sources of power are remarkably cheaper than fossil fuels, barring initial start-up. So there's gonna be huge costs due to the consequences of climate change, as well as rising costs for fossil fuels. Not sure why you think stopping mass extinction events is somehow more expensive than letting them happen.
Besides, the idea that individual citizens need to pay for it are a myth. Large corporations account for over 90% of this crap. They can foot the bill.
I think it just represents a particular political ethos. She's a moderate, who won a highly contested election in a fairly conservative state by being moderate. Her moderate campaign was probably essential in securing that win. I think she also echoed a lot of the "Maverick-ism" that made McCain very popular in AZ, and what is she being now if not somewhat of a "maverick".
A US senator sometimes tries to reflect the views of their constituency, and sometimes believe their constituency selected them for the senator's own views to go forward as they feel best works for them: This is why the Georgia Senators might choose to support the bill while an AZ senator might oppose it.
Susan Collins is probably the most moderate member of the GOP (Maybe Murkowski) - and she recently came out against it, despite Maine being a fair liberal area that voted for Biden by a reasonable degree. Is she just grandstanding too?
They can foot the bill, but they can also raise their prices, AND tell the consumers why those prices are being raised. Democracy is all about getting the most votes in the NEXT election. It takes an intelligent electorate to look at the long term. We are definitely not there yet..
Again, she's not necessarily a moderate. I think people are right to question her seeming change of views here. As I said, she ran as a Green Party candidate, it really doesn't get more leftist than that. She championed progressive economic policy in past campaigns as a Democrat. The public -- and other members of the party -- are right to think there's something duplicitous here.
That's why regulation is a thing. Remember, before regulation, businesses paid people in "scrip" instead of real money.
Normally, I would say that assuming a particular donation by a group of or corporation to a candidate doesn't necessarily mean anything on it's own. It's entirely possible to take money from corporate interests and vote against then when the rubber hits the road. But Sinema's votes this term really do seem connected to who is funding her campaign and PAC, notably the pharmaceutical industry.
There is definitely something to the "I'm from Arizona, I'm gonna be like John McCain" thing. But I'd say there is a world of difference between a vote made solely to spite Donald Trump personally that just so happened to NOT kick millions of people off their health insurance with no back up plan, and possibly torpedoing a bill that provides things like replacing lead water pipes, expanding rural broadband capability, and providing more dental coverage through Medicare (just to name a few) out of either some theatric notion of "moderation" just plain being bought off. The moral implications and components of these two bills and votes are not equal, nor are the reasons for opposing them.
Case in the point: while she headed back to Arizona in the middle of negotiations, she just released a two-page statement expressing disappointment that the House isn't going to vote yet. I read the entire thing twice, and I still can't even discern the first thing about what she actually wants.
I've seen her trajectory in former left-wing media personalities, and I'm not entirely convinced she isn't on a path to switching parties, not because her "demands" aren't being met, but because it's a savvy career move. If there was something she wanted to prevent this, I'd give it to her, but, again, at BEST, her problems with the bill and what she'd prefer are abstract and cryptic, and that is being generous. If there is something she wants or prefers, it would be helpful if she would say what the fuck it is so people know what field they're playing on. Until she does so, I can only assume she values the theater of this more than the bill passing OR not passing.
I know what Manchin wants. He's someone who is at least pretending to care about the deficit, wants to gut many of the climate provisions, and wants to means test some of the programs. At least that's a POSITION. All I know about Sinema is she magically reversed her view on the prescription drug provision from where it was 3 years ago after get $750,000 from the pharmaceutical companies. If she wants to present another narrative, everyone is waiting to hear it.
This is an honest ask: Can you provide some sourcing that she ran as a progressive in her senate seat that she eventually won? I know she *was* a green party anti war politician way back in the early 2000s - but from what I can tell, she's been regarded as a blue dog or moderate Democrats since the second she set foot into the senate. Unless I am mistaken, she wasnt a progressive for several years in the senate and only now that Biden is in the white house has suddenly become a moderate. I think she's been this way for her entire senatorial career. (But please - if you have evidence to support a different view, I'd like to read it).
I personally think that the left (and public) want someone to blame for the gridlock, and they're pointing at the two most moderate members of the Democrat's coalition. The progressive left needs a boogieman, so Manchin and Sinema arent just moderates, but are now "evil, greedy and corrupt!". It's very convenient. It reminds me how when Warren backed off of MFA in the 2020 primaries, she suddenly went from champion of progressives to *Snake emoji*
I say this as a progressive, but my god would progressives be so much more effective as a political force in this country if they didnt believe that deep down, 50 + 1 % of the country were actually progressives that supported everything they do. If Bernie Sanders knew how to work with other people, he'd probably be the most powerful political figure since Reagan. In reality, that could probably be said about Conservatives, who have long tricked themselves into believing the "silent majority" backs them.
But this is not like Obamacare. There is no groundswell of public opposition to this bill. What's animating the far right at the moment is opposition to vaccine mandates. Polling suggests this bill is, in generalities, widely popular. The kicker is it gets even MORE popular when it's explained that part of it is paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.
I simply don't believe their positions stem from listening to the carefully considered objections of the citizens of WV and AZ. The only people who even know this is going on are political junkies. Their positions are coming from lobbyists. Manchin and Sinema are only "corrupt" in the sense that the entire system is corrupt, and basically allows for legalized bribery since Citizens United.
This does have a comparison to Obamacare, in that two Senators managed to whittle it down to the point that, while certainly vastly preferable to the status quo, was a shadow of what it could have been. These chances come along once a decade at most. When Republicans get them, usually on tax cuts and the court, they swing for the home run. Democrats seem content with bloop singles to the opposite field. Of course this is MOSTLY a result of the Senate shifting the Overton Window so far to the right.
Manchin did something I absolutely despise a couple days ago, using this framing of "entitlements". Most of what are referred to as entitlements are, in actuality, better described as "earned benefits". But the right has so successfully manipulated the language on this subject over the decades that stuff we literally pay for every two weeks out of our paycheck is described with a word that has become a synonym for "welfare". Drives me up a wall.
I'll get around to your ask as it's a little bit of work to dig up 2018 campaign stuff, I am going off some trusted journalists' remarks with that. But I did want to real quick drop this here:
Maybe this was a communication error. So I'm willing to change my mind if it gets clarified. But right now, it really doesn't look like she's being honest. And shouldn't we want to hold lobbyist-allied politicians to account? If she is as bad as this looks, it's not like it would be some novel, extraordinary thing for a Senator.
Everyone from Charlotte Alter in Time, to Maureen Dowd in the NYT, to Axios is running profiles of her, and they all seem to come to the same conclusion (aside from reading more like articles about a movie star). That she wants to be seen as a "maverick", and that this professional contrarianism is the means to that end. Wanting to be the female John McCain is not an ideology or governing philosophy. It's a branding exercise. And absent any core beliefs other than your own brand, money from donors fills that void.'
Maybe what sets this off for me is being one of the very small minority of people who never bought into McCain's "maverick" persona in the first place. And this is mostly because I read extensively about the 2000 Republican primary, in which the Bush campaign blanketed South Carolina with robo-calls insinuating his adopted daughter from Bangladesh was actually an out of wedlock black child. So much of what McCain bucking his own party occasionally was based on was nothing more than personal animus and spite towards W. and Trump for what they said about him, either indirectly or, in Trump's case, from his own mouth. And this somehow turned him into such a bipartisan hero that a sizable portion of Democrats in 2004 wanted Kerry to put him on the ticket (not like he ever would have joined). But it was mostly bullshit except for some high profile moments like the Healthcare vote. Other than that, he was a rock-solid Republican who had a narrative painted about him by the media every time he went on television.
Also, people need to stop equating the two parties. One tried to throw out the election because they lost, stormed the capitol to outright murder lawmakers on the other side, and tossed children in cages with little food, shelter, or medical care. The other one isn't agressive enough when trying to stop these things. There's a world of difference between the 2 right now. And I will not stop harping on this until things change again, or I'm dead.
To clarify, by "parties" I am referring to those in charge. These would Democratic Senators and representatives as well as the Trump Administration at the time of these events. Since it was brought to my attention that some people had trouble with this.
https://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSKBN2GT0KF
Gave away 8 billion dollars in 2 years, which is staggering, and her net worth has almost doubled since then. Our entire economy is built specifically to funnel all the money upwards to the already wealthy. That's capitalism at work.
This also illustrates that we can tax the everloving heck out of the super rich, and they won't even feel it.
My guess is that most of the transactions are legal, but just illustrate the ways in which the rich avoid taxes and attention. This story from the Pandora papers explains how Tony Blair, who was strong on the idea of getting rid of tax loopholes, was able to save £312,000 on stamp duty when acquiring property ...
'Legal' and 'up and up' aren't necessarily the same thing. If I sell my crypto and make a few bucks on it, you can bet your ass the IRS will be all over me to 'pay my fair share' but meanwhile, when the truly wealthy protect their riches they get cricket noises...
Edit: Hell, I even have to declare the paltry 0.05% interest I make on my savings account (usually < $10) and the roughly $5 in dividends on the 1 share of my company stock I got as a gift from them when they listed on the NYSE!